Posted on 08/11/2022 10:50:13 PM PDT by Morgana
They ain’t true Christians. They’re woke libiots.
Made for TV story.
But let’s say the fundamentals are factual...
The ardent rejection of “same-sex” families is idiotic. I’d have no problem welcoming the aforementioned child to the school. The “why” shouldn’t require an explanation.
>> Best to avoid the lawsuit, these two are troublemakers
Good point, but that concern could be mitigated with a contract.
The child’s biggest problem is that she has been turned over to a couple of perverts. It was lousy adult and gov’t decisions that created a situation around the kid that a Christian school couldn’t be opening its doors to, for the sake of sheltering the rest of the kids and families. Nobody should be gaslighting the school over declining to rewrite their rules over an unnecessary problem that was not of their making.
Steve Bannon was interviewed by them recently. We see more news about us from them than from our own media. I see more fake news from the commentators on here that on DM
🇺🇸🎚 Thoughts —
#1. This school was targeted for take down for sure.
To sodomites (regardless of the color of their perverted and fake rainbow), anything truly “Christian” is like a wooden cross to Dracula, or worse
They live to pervert the purity of innocent children, and to destroy all things family and Christian. Of n.v course, this is the goal of all who are at war with God. They don’t have to be living a lifestyle of sodomy on ever spiralling moral scale.
I am aware of multiple sodomite take down attempts of Christian schools in multiple states. Additionally, sinfe the 1980’s, I have tracked multiple attempts to destroy pastors, churches, and large ministries since the 1980’s.
This is not knew at all.
The further our nations moral decline, the more coordinated, well funded, louder and more pervasive the dawg pile attacks have become.
I am even aware of well funded sodomite organizations, which were behind fraudulent and initially successful legal attacks to destroy ministries, involving heterosexual assault “victim’s”.
One well established Christian school was operating under the umbrella of a strong Bible believing/teaching church I used to be a member. (I believe its Christian school established in 1961).
The church and school were targeted three times before 1993’, and only survived state Apeals Court due to their strong and very careful, detailed, joint, written and verbal intake application process and contract agreement with both parents (if still alive), as well as the pupil beginning from *fifth grade!
If the parents were divorced, the Christian school still required the same application process, beginning with the doctrinal/teaching/rules brief and agreement, from both parents.
What saved the school last time, was their pre-announced *audio and *video recorded briefing and parental contracts signing with the church and school.
In each case so far, there was a well funded effort to trap and destroy both the church and its school.
If parents did not agree with the biblically based (pre announced orthodox beliefs, and derived core practical position’s/teaching/standard’s (rules) of BOTH church AND school, the pupil was never admitted. Although they always placed that caveat right up front, always had at least two staff witnesses, and always kept it genuinely friendly.
Sounds tough, and it is very sad, but children are literally nothing more than pawns to be destructively used as weapons of the anti-Christ/anti-morality sociopath left.
The courts have remained hostile in every case, with lower courts *STILL lawlessly ruling against my former church and school, and to a degree which most churches and schools could not survive financially. However, on appeal there was never a contest, and cases dismissed.
This is a terminally adversarial society and judicial system toward true Christianity.
#2. There is zero chance this school was not targeted. The “Christian” school is likely screwed in this case and anti-moral legal environment, as the school appears to have originally agreed to admit this innocent little person (who really is loved, and truly valuable to God).
Sounds harsh to say this today for sure, but the parents AREN’T even true parents, AND THEY *originally chose to use their little person as a weapon of war, a “thing”, to get publicity, and to do more damage to Christ and those who follow Him, and to conservative Americans who don’t embrace their sodomite, fake, state recognized union.
People like this are plants used by the gay community to instigate lawsuits against Christian schools.
“Hate” my foot. Wait until God confronts them if they think this Christian school was not “good” Christians.
Good Christians do not enable or condone sin.
+ 2 on that!
That is it exactly. When homosexuals adopt, the child is denied having a father or denied having a mother. It is so completely wrong.
Tough
Bingo
Thank u
If only churches, Christian schools and true born again Christians would collectively stand for righteousness, we wouldn’t keep having these camel’s nose under the tent scenerios.
And now we know what reprobate minds look like. John MacArthur has done a couple of sermons on this. One of them was decades ago. The message is the same, but now what can happen to a mind and what “continually evil” in Genesis can look like.
Well, too bad what you believe. Private school gets to make its own rules.
Ah, I’m in two minds about this. Hard cases make bad laws.
My adopted family is Methodist, church-going, and very pious.
Their wills all contain reciprocal clauses to ensure that if the parents of children were to die unexpectedly then their children shall NOT go into the care system to be adopted by strangers - they’ll be taken in by aunts or uncles. I have the same setup with my brothers and sisters. My kids are grown up now but even when they were infants the provision was in place such that if my wife and I, god forbid, died suddenly, my family would take them in and then legally adopt them.
Is that an immoral thing to do? Gotta admit, when we did this not one of us predicated the arrangement on whether or not the surviving brothers or sisters were married, unmarried, in a relationship, gay or straight.
And frankly, if you’d asked me to put that into the contract I would’ve refused point blank. Would I rather my kids be put into orphanages than move in with an aunt or uncle they’d known all their life? Of course not. I had five years of orphanage life and fostering, no stability. It’s taken forty years of counselling for me to get over the abandonment issues. And I had a GOOD experience in the care system. Would I ever risk putting my daughter through that? With the added risk of sexual abuse that often comes with it? HELL NO.
“When homosexuals adopt, the child is denied having a father or denied having a mother.”
Not in this case. Zoey’s father died in an accident in 2020. Whether it’s Jennifer or Emily who’s the aunt, the fact is Zoey’s been living with them for two years, and has spent one year in Pre-K at the Bible Baptist Academy. Zoey’s mother could easily resume contact with Zoey post-adoption if she wanted to, AND if there was no other very compelling reason for the contact between mother and daughter being terminated for the child’s sake.
While I object to the very concept of calling gay unions “marriage”, I do NOT oppose the idea of civil contracts between gays. Nor do I object to any family adoption in circumstances where one or both parents dies suddenly in an accident and the care of the child is TRUSTED to a relative, by the deceased, who probably knows their brother and sister far better than any old judgemental teed who’s never met them.
For those reasons, this adoption does not appear to me to be a “lifestyle choice”. For all we know, it was a legal and moral obligation that the dead father HIMSELF set up, and for all we know the principle that no child of the family would be adopted out in the event of parental death went both ways. Maybe if the gay aunt had adopted a kid or had one naturally, that kid would’ve been adopted by Zoey’s father and mother in the event of her death.
That Baptist school had no problem with Zoey attending pre-K while being FOSTERED by her aunt who had already been in a gay “marriage” for over five years; they’ve only decided to block the school place because the aunt completed a legal adoption process.
I find that volte-face TOTALLY weird. If they were objecting to a gay couple sending a kid to the school, they had a whole bloody year BEFORE the adoption was finalised to say something about it.
I understand your thinking on this. I’ve been influenced by some of the US cases where man-woman couples wait behind man-man couples for adoption. The UK had a famous writer/historian named Dame Veronica Wegewood who lived as a lesbian. She wrote extensively about the Purtan Parliamentarian Oliver Cromwell and often praised him profusely even citing his “strong masculine intellect”. He would not approve of her but she still approved of him as a man for his time and an instinctive military leader. I would not want a child to go to an orphanage when such child could be adopted by her. Yet I’ll also state that I would rather my own child be adopted by illiterate rural Blacks on a farm way back up in the woods than be adopted by Elton John with his fortune (assuming the Black couple believed in God, honesty, and hard work).
how could the kid ‘love the school’?
she hasn’t even started school yet!!
the kid is the tool for the normalizing of the adults’ lifestyle.
and yes, PRIVATE school, yds, PRIVATE school rules.
why did the adults not put the kid in a normal kindergarten school?
they wanted to set legal precedence about their lifestyle.
lifestyle choices
So, again, its a choice. Not born that way...not anything except a choice.
And if you felt it was a slap in the face...GOOD. It was meant to be.
Its bad enough you were allowed to adopt and corrupt an innocent victim. You are not going to offend an entire school because of your “choices”.
The little girl doesn’t need two mommies, she needs a daddy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.